Public health law

Public health law
Project description
Fundamentals of Public Health Law

 

Directions: Follow these directions extremely carefully. Failure to follow directions is likely to reduce your grade. This exercise is due on at noon on April 9, 2014. Essays turned in after this date and time will receive a reduced grade.

Do not exceed a total of 750 words, including references and footnotes. If you cite to legal sources, do not worry about proper legal citation format. Your exercise grade will not be affected by the use or nonuse of proper legal citation format.
Submit your essay as a WORD file, printed in 11-point type, black on a white field, single-spaced with 1-
inch margins.

In answering the question, follow the principles set out in the class handout, “Draft Handout on Legal Reasoning and Writing,” and subsequently discussed in class. Also, pay close attention to the feedback you received in class and individually on Writing Exercises Numbers 1 and 2, and on the examples posted on Blackboard of very good exercises. Be particularly careful not to not make up, create, or assume any facts in your essay; instead, use only the facts and rules provided in the question. Also, be
very careful not to use up wordcount by repeating the question or the facts, except as needed to answer
the question.

 

[Note: The following scenario is entirely fictional, intended to be used only as an educational tool, and is not intended to present real facts about any activity or any real policy of CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services. The scenario has not been approved by CDC or the Department of Health and Human Services.]

You are serving as an intern in the Washington office of Representative Joe Davola, who represents the 8th Congressional District of the U.S. State of South Caledonia. Rep. Davola is a
former state representative in South Caledonia and has been a member of the U.S. Congress for
17 years. Rep. Davola spent most of his career as an insurance executive in his own small insurance brokerage and he is an expert on insurance. You are not a lawyer and do not have formal legal training, but you have taken an introductory course in public health law at a leading public health school in the United States.

Rep. Davola has a 44-year-old constituent, Robert Doe, who recently was in an automobile crash with another car. Nobody was injured but both cars were total losses. The police report determined that Robert was legally at fault for the crash. Luckily, as required under South Caledonia law, Robert had an automobile liability insurance policy that paid for damage to the other car. Unfortunately, Robert had not purchased another type of auto coverage, collision insurance.

Collision insurance is automobile insurance for damage to the policyholder’s own car in a collision with another vehicle, collision with an object, or a vehicle rollover. Collision insurance is different than automobile liability insurance, which pays for the damage if a policyholder is legally responsible for accidentally injuring someone else, or for damaging another person’s vehicle or other property in an auto accident. Liability auto insurance is legally required for drivers in almost all U.S. states, but collision insurance generally is not required. See http://www.autoinsurance.org/types-of-auto-insurance-coverage/.

Because Robert did not have collision insurance, he was not able to collect any money from his insurance company for the total loss of his car. This had a major effect on his livelihood and caused him to lose his job, a severe financial blow.

Rep. Davola was very affected by Robert’s story and he believes he has come up with a way to prevent the kind of severe social disruption and job loss that happened to Robert. If all owner- drivers in the United States were required to have collision auto insurance, these consequences could be avoided, he believes.

The Representative is considering introducing the “Collision Insurance Requirement and Traffic Safety Act (CIRTSA).” The Act would require all owners of automobiles in the United States to have a certain minimal amount of auto collision insurance. The law would authorize the U.S. Department of Transportation to write regulations specifying the minimum standards and
levels of coverage that owners must buy. Owners who fail to purchase the minimum amount of
collision coverage would have to pay a substantial penalty through their federal income tax filing.

Rep. Davola is aware that the CIRTSA, if enacted, might attract a lawsuit on grounds that the mandate to have collision insurance is not within the power of the federal government, and specifically, is not within the Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause. He already knows that the power to establish such a requirement may be found under the doctrine that the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to regulate the “channels of interstate commerce,” and “person or things in interstate commerce.” But now he has asked you to write a short
memorandum (max. 750 words) on another subject—the two best arguments that can be used to argue that the federal government does have the authority to require individuals to buy collision insurance under the power to regulate activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce.

To write the memo, you should use only the following materials:

• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, et al., 132 S.Ct. 2566 (2012) (main opinion and concurring opinion, as posted on Blackboard for Class 8)
• Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) (abridged version posted for Class 4)
• readings assigned for class
• class lectures and slides

Your memorandum should address the question: What are the two best arguments for the proposition that the federal government does have the authority to mandate that all individual automobile owners in the United States buy collision insurance, under Congress’s power to regulate those activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce? Be sure to fully explain your choices. At the end of your essay, please say whether you feel either of these two arguments would succeed and explain why.

In writing your answer:

• Do not consider the federal government’s taxing power.
• Do not consider the federal government’s power to regulate channels or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons and things in interstate commerce.
Restrict your answer to the federal power to regulate activities that “substantially affect” interstate commerce.
• Do not consider the federal government’s power under the Necessary and Proper
Clause.
• This question does not involve equal protection or substantive due process. Do not consider those.
• There is no need to do additional reading or research.
• Your memorandum should run no more than 750 words, including references and/or footnotes.
Optional Bonus Points Question (maximum 3 percentage points)

This is an optional bonus question. You are not required to answer this question as part of the third essay exercise. Maximum bonus points are 3 percentage points added to your third essay exercise grade. Maximum wordcount is 300 words (does not count against the 750 word maximum for the exercise).

You are driving your automobile out West at midday on a flat, uninhabited, featureless and treeless desert in crystal clear weather. You are driving on a small rise and can see ten miles in every direction. Except for the road you are driving on, there is nothing but flat sand as far as the eye can see. Ahead is a highway stop sign at the intersection of your road and a crossroad.

Assume that there are no police officers, law enforcement officers, detectors, aircraft, cameras, etc. that can detect whether you stop or not. Whether you stop will be known only to you. Also assume that there are no other vehicles, pedestrians, or any people at all within a ten mile radius. Assume that if you do not stop at the stop sign, you cannot hit anyone, any thing, or cause any harm or risk to yourself or to anybody else or any thing

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂